posted on September 24, 2000 11:09:02 AM new
The clause "One would be tempted to deny that ..." makes sense in its sentence. The "... one would have to deny the fact ..." makes its sentence nonsense. Knot a vary goode example four constitutionality of righting stiles.
[ edited by figmente on Sep 24, 2000 11:14 AM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 11:14:11 AM new
I wonder if another aspect in play here with this painting is trying to establish a market value for it for purposes of charitable contribution deductions? Not sure how the IRS handles setting values nowdays...
posted on September 24, 2000 11:24:42 AM new
What an interesting thread, free of talk of handling charges and feedback; a thread filled with the musings of many favorite old posters, and many new ones too.
Why is it so enthralling? Because it touches something in each of us, the art lover, the amateur detective the auction afficianado.
It is even educational. As one example I cite the dimensions of the canvas. Intrigued by the odd size I reviewed the measurements of van Gogh's others. It is fair to say that a large percentage could be described as nonstandard.
One thing we all have in common here is an interest in the question, "What is something worth?" We like the answer provided by auctions. Experts on TV shows and experts selling their own price guides are one thing, but knowing that a real person paid an actual amount is a much more valuable indication of worth. We also like to look at auctions and anticipate the outcome. This one was made for interesting discussion.
What we would most enjoy would be a real back and forth between world recognized experts with differing opinions on this painting based on close examination. Name calling would be welcome. Unfortunately we don't have any experts in the debate.
A suspicious mind, such as my own, might think that the seller and auction house were concerned about what the tone of the debate would be if the picture had been run past the likely experts. Think of it as the possible van Gogh in the hand versus the possibly definitely not a van Gogh in the bush.
We are familiar with the well known ebay equivilent: "I am not an expert on these, but...", a sure sign for caution.
The problem in this thread is that even if the picture's supporters prevail over us skeptics, nothing has been gained. If I knock over my teacup as I slap myself up the side of the head exclaiming, "Yes, now I see it! It must be a van Gogh," believe me, I am still not going to bid $2,000,000 on it. The believer needs to be the buyer.
If the doubts of the AW regulars who have kept this thread going seem tough to overcome, imagine someone with a spare few million in their bank account, even the ones who did not earn it are good at holding on to it.
So,it comes down to this, in order to actually sell this painting rather than merely to use it for publicity, many of us feel that the auction house and seller need to do a better job helping potential bidders overcome their reluctance. Is disagreeing with this opinion acceptable, certainly. Does disagreeing with it help sell the picture, nope.
Keep the coffee pots on and the browser windows open.
posted on September 24, 2000 12:03:57 PM newflowblue2, it would seem that you are more interested in attacking the credentials of others, which are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It would seem that you are doing this to take the spotlight off of the tissue thin credentials of the professionals who were cited as validating this work.
Instead, you are attempting to attack the credentials of amateur web lawyers/sleuths/art afficionados, who are really doing the seller a favor. We are providing, currently free of charge, legal preparation, research, and advice on subjects certain to arrise should the painting actually sell or be bid upon. The seller should be paying us for the services we are rendering, rather than you, flowblue2, attempting to attack us on a personal level when we are confining our research, advice, and comments, to the net and evidence, freely posted by the seller or his/her agents.
We are not responsible for the haphazard and clumsy manner in which this has been handled. We simply point to the obvious and glaring faults, so that the seller or their agent can address these issues in a timely manner.
posted on September 24, 2000 12:14:29 PM new
Rosie -
Exactly. If a disorganized bunch of enthusiastic amateurs can find this many problems with the painting using only the resources avauilable on the web and in our own homes, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of making it past someone who deals in this level of art for a living.
posted on September 24, 2000 12:18:28 PM new
An Speeking of experts' this, is the email adress, On the book cite for [b]How To Save Your Stuff
From a Disaster[/b]
posted on September 24, 2000 12:37:01 PM newScott Haskins is a recognized conservator who has been in the business for over 20 years. Do you think he would risk his business and reputation on this painting if he did not have certain beliefs and facts to back them up. What would he have to gain by the sale of "Yellow Roses"?
How about a nice fat cut of the take?
Actually, he's only "been in business" since 1986. Before that, he was employed by a fledgling firm that died within 2 years of its birth, and worked for a couple years at BYU. No info on him before 1983.
Do we also have to prove that The McCrone Research Institute and John Twilley also do not have a vested interest?
Given seller's credulity track record? Yes. And Bright, too.
One of the basic yardsticks in legal discernment is "Cui bono?" - "To whom goes the benefit?" If a witness testifying in a party's behalf has an interest in that party's prevailing, his testimony is useless without independent corroborating evidence from a disinterested party.[/i]
Also note the sentences. Quite long.
Apparently you see no difference between complex syntactical construction and run-on sentences, and typographical errors and grotesque homonymic gaffes are one and the same to you. Okay, hands up: Who's surprised?
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 24, 2000 12:38 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 01:02:36 PM new
HCQ, I have noticed that your sentences are quite long, and that in your statements you have used the words: "to", "deny", "one", and "would".
I also noted the letter you contributed signed "John Rewald."
posted on September 24, 2000 01:18:36 PM new
HartCottageQuilts -
Please do not make ad hominim attacks about my giraffe. Yes, he's grotesque, but it's not his fault!
posted on September 24, 2000 04:36:23 PM new
Just found FACL's website, which claims that "Under the direction of Scott M. Haskins, FACL has been providing professional conservation services for 17 years."
Unfortunately, according to newsletter articles written by Haskins himself, ACL (FACL's predecessor) opened its doors in 2/1984 -which by my calendar is only 16 years, not 17.
Now Haskins did indeed leave BYU for ACL in 1984. However, as late as 1985 (15 years ago) the company was "directed" by James Hansen (president) and Ed Ouelette (VP); Haskins described himself as "head paintings conservator" (he had one assistant and an intern).
FACL didn't even formally exist until ACL folded in 1986 (14 years ago), at which point I think we can say for certainty it was under Haskins's "direction".
If ACL/FACL has been in business for 17 years, Haskins must've started "directing" ACL well before the day he set foot in the door back in '84.
But I'm just being fussy.
I tried clicking on his bio link but nothing comes up FACL touts itself as specializing in mural/fresco restoration, which jibes with reports on Haskins's work in the WAAC newsletters. I haven't found him noted anywhere as working on oil paintings.
An interesting note: the website points out that picture frames "...can sometimes be worth more than the picture." I agree wholeheartedly.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Sep 24, 2000 04:39 PM ]
RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ROSEBUD posted on September 24, 2000 06:35:15
"This is hearsay and unless Mr. Haskins has a correspondence directly from the offices of John Rewald, his statement is pure hearsay. MUCHLESS, there is an opportunity to call this witnesses (Haskin's) credibility into question, as his original report (dated May 6, 1988) made absolutely no mention of the penciled in "property of Molly Brown" that was "found" or reported September 13, 2000."
Rosiebud, It appears you have not noticed the person in which the letter was sent to is blocked out to protect their identity.Am I to understand you correctly,you are stating unless Mr. Haskins has a letter from Rewald , his statements would be considered hearsay? So if the said letter is addressed to Haskins ,this will give prove that they worked together to authenticate Yellow Roses"?
I wonder if it entered your mind that this correspondence could have been addressed to Mr. Haskins?
Mr. Haskins has already stated that he spoke with Mr. Rewald , and that "Mr. Rewald confirmed the painting to be that of a Van Gogh." If the correspondence was sent to Haskins it would give a written document giving conformation that Haskins and Rewald calibrated to authenticate the painting.
As far as the pencil signature, property of Molly Brown on the back of the painting.I suggest you make a phone call to Mr. Haskins and ask him why he did not mention this in his report?
Fact, Mr. Rewald authenticated Yellow Roses.Please Stick to the facts, leave out your opinion, you are speculating to what could have been?. STICK TO FACTS. Mr. Haskins worked with Mr. Rewald to authenticate the painting. That is a fact unless you can disprove it? Again I think you should take this up with Mr. Haskins, instead of making insulting statements as to his credibility on an open chat line for many to see. You are stepping over the line.
Do you possibly think the owner of this painting would submit forged documents to be added to a provenance on an Internet auction?
This gentleman has a right to sell his painting in any fashion he pleases. So why don't you give it a break. Your making fools of yourselves.
The facts have been presented, you know are questioning the persons that provided the facts? Do you think you know more about authenticating art then the experts?
posted on September 24, 2000 05:04:03 PM new
How interesting that it has become a "FACT" that Rewald authenticated the work less than a week ago... When the auction was first posted, not a peep about this. Hmmmm. I think HCQ will have some VERY interesting information for us shortly.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:10:52 PM newLAGOLDIE
Gotta love those caps! Obviously I hit a sore spot with you.
First of all, are you telling me that the painting belongs to Haskins? That seems to be what you are possibly insinuating.
Quoted directly from the letter that "Rewald" wrote, first paragraph:
I have reviewed the materials that you gave me in January of this year and have come to the conclusion regarding your painting
So, yes, LAGOLDIE, unless Haskins is the owner of this painting his statement is hearsay.
However, if Haskins is the owner of the painting, then it would be in his best interest to explain why he's authenticating something that he owns. I don't think that would be ethical. Do you?
As far as the pencil signature on the painting........ WRONG! I am not going to call Haskin's office and ask him why it was not mentioned in his report. Everything else was! It talks about the framing, support, canvas, picture, etc.......... yet he fails to mention that there's a penciled in signature on the frame until 12 years later! My statements were not insulting, they were, as you say "STICKING TO THE FACTS".
We have stuck to the facts as they were presented on this auction, by the seller and whatever declaritive statements s/he has made. If the facts are incorrect, than perhaps the blame for that should be laid upon the shoulders of the seller and/or the experts cited.
Now, answer me this LAGOLDIE, when EXACTLY did you see that painting in Amsterdam, as the letter from McCrone is dated March 23, 1990. I'm guessing that you saw it sometime within the next seven days...... right? Remember, stick to the facts.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:19:48 PM new
Hello. After seeing so many people write in, I figured I would also like to add my comments to the discussion.
I must say, Abacaxi, Hart Cottage Quilts, Godzilla Temple, and Rosibud, that overnight, each of you have appointed yourselves art experts on a multi-million dollar painting. Who knew you didn't have to be a recognized art expert to declare a painting authentic or not? I guess nowadays, anybody with access to the Internet and a chatboard will do.
You are each very willing to stick out your necks - to go out of the way - to discredit any fact which doesn't support your theories.
I too, have gone and looked at the "Yellow Roses" painting, and I do not pretend to say that I have the knowledge to declare this
painting a van Gogh or not. That is why I am willing to consider the experts who have looked at this painting. (John Twilley, Dr.
Walter McCrone, Scott Haskins, and John Rewald).
I believe the following point has been made several times already, but many of you have chosen to ignore it: It was VERIFIED that the painting "Yellow Roses" underwent technical analysis by very credible, highly regarded professionals. Their phone numbers were even made public. A letter of expert authentication was also provided, which several of you complained you wanted to see. Didn't you also say that you would take the word of an expert on this painting if it was provided? So, the letter signed by John Rewald on his letterhead confirming "Yellow Roses" as a true van Gogh is not good enough?
(No - I guess many of you can declare it a fake without ever having had correspondence with John Rewald yourselves. My "healthy skepticism" is now taking over.) Walter McCrone's technical analysis is not good enough (as far as I know, he doesn't have a vested interest in the painting)? Museum conservator's technical analysis not good enough? Would you be as willing to insult these gentleman and their credentials if they were here to defend themselves?
It seems as though there is an agenda here to discredit any facts which have been brought forth, no matter how credible. This does not make sense. A reasonable person will admit that technical analysis and expert authentication of this painting has been provided, and three out of four of these documents have been verified. So how can any of you continue to discredit the painting, the seller, and the professionals involved in analyzing the painting?
Please, everyone, seeing things through tunnel-vision is not an accurate way of looking at things. Are each of you psychic and therefore knowing of all the facts to this story? The last I checked, we were simply posters on a chat board, and not credible to authenticate van gogh paintings. If each of you has so much concern for the truth, then please show it.
[ edited by iceblink on Sep 24, 2000 05:20 PM ]
[ edited by iceblink on Sep 24, 2000 05:24 PM ]
[ edited by iceblink on Sep 24, 2000 06:02 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 05:28:57 PM new
Here we go again...another newly registered poster! This just keeps getting better and better
(I feel like I'm the chorus in a Greek tragedy)
These tactics just galvanize us more. The only saving grace here is that no one has yet bid on this "Van Gogh". Humph! Go figure.
Edited to add: Why would we continue to question this painting and its attribution? Check out this link to a "Van Gogh" painting called "Sunflowers and Oleanders": http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/vangogh/chapter7.html Interesting how many of the parties involved with that fiasco are involved here.
I would also like to add that Walter McCrone is a highly respected figure in his field. However, he is not infallible. His testing of the Shroud of Turin, the Vinland Map and a stolen Rembrandt from Boston have been seriously questioned by many: http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#sidebar Even he has admitted that it is easier to debunk a work than to authenticate one: http://www.museum-security.org/97/october181997.html#30
However, his previous involvement with a flawed Van Gogh (the "Sunflowers and Oleanders" above) would cause a reasonable person to pause.
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 24, 2000 05:39 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 05:31:54 PM new
On the strength of the painting $2,000 would be a strong realization. On the strength of a poorly supported rumor that it might actually be Molly Brown's Van Gogh one might get $200,000. On the strength of their claims that this is a confirmed Van Gogh the owners hope to realize at least $2,000,000.
As such there appears to be plenty of motivation.
I have not seen grounds to state the letter is a forgery, but there is plenty of aroma to inspire scrutiny.
Why would anyone with a Van Gogh choose to offer it on such an obscure venue? Perhaps to try to find a mark without raising their profile too high.
Why is no mention made of the opinion of the Van Gogh gallery? Perhaps this was requested the and the result was R. Pickvance saying no way. Of course the premier Cezanne authority knew better than the premier Van Gogh scholar.
Would John Rewald be so naive as to think that the refenences to size 20 and 30 paintings for Muave mean 20 and 30 inches? Perhaps one forgets a lot of details after death, but gains prescience as to what his colleague will say.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:41:28 PM new
Doesn't this make anyone else wonder, if all these people, who come in and say that they totally believe what's presented as fact ........ are the same people, who bid on an auction without doing research and regret it later (re: buyers remorse)
You know what? If I were to spend any amount of money, on anything, you can bet that I will do research on said item. If the "facts" that I have been presented by the seller, don't add up to the facts that I find myself from disintested parties/sites, than there's no possible way that I'm going to bid on that auction. Plus, if I return to the auction page, and the "facts" have been changed, from what I originally saw, that doubles my suspicions and I will shy away from that seller's auction even further!
If, you wish to believe exactly what's printed there, without benefit of your own research, than please go right ahead. No one is stopping you. This applies to anyone who interested in this painting, or anything else that is up for auction or sale.
It's buyer beware in this world.. and the moment that painting was posted for auction....... we all became potential buyers.
posted on September 24, 2000 05:44:50 PM new
Also, did you notice in the aforementioned article that the "Sunflowers and Oleanders" was taken to the Van Gogh Museum who flat out said it was not a Van Gogh. What year was that?....hummm, 1990. Why does that year seem to be so popular for visits to Amsterdam?
Edited to add: Here again is the link in which it is stated that in 1997 Tom Bright (who did the brushstroke analysis on "our" Yellow Roses) sold a Van Gogh "Yellow Roses" for $9 million. Same painting?? How did it devalue so quickly?: http://www.sacbee.com/news/projects/vangogh/update072297.html
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 24, 2000 05:51 PM ]
[ edited by athena1365 on Sep 24, 2000 05:52 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 06:37:06 PM new
Rosiebud, I did not refer in any respect that the painting belonged to Mr. Haskins. Please point out the statement
that would lead you to believe I did? It was my intention to make the point that Mr. Haskins stated in the resent
AW article, and also to a representative from OAS, that he had a conversation with Mr. Rewald. In this
conversation Mr. Rewald gave his opinion on the painting,'Yellow Roses" reporting "that Yellow Roses was painted by Van Gogh."
Fact, The document that authenticates Yellow Roses is posted on OAS, this document was written and signed by
Mr. John Rewald. We can only speculate on Who the document was addressed to. The document does state “I have
reviewed the material you gave me” This would lead one to believe these document were handed over in person.
It does not state sent me. Mr. Haskins has as I stated several times , referred to a conversation he had with Mr. Haskins. If I were a betting
woman , I would bet The letter was addressed to Mr. Haskins.
Fact, Can you prove the Rewald document is a forgery, as you are openly implying?
Again, Do you think your opinion on the paintings authenticity should be considered above Mr. Rewald, and the other
three conservators? Could you please answer these questions? You hesitate to answer direct questions.Why is that?
Concerning the time frame in which I saw the painting in Amsterdam. Last time I counted there were still 7 days in a week. A flight to Amsterdam from LA was approximately 12 hours to reach Amsterdam, we had a slight lay over in New York. So you speculate the paintings journey, you speculate so well.
This form of open speculation could lead to great legal problems, if the owner of the painting or anyone of the conservators wished to further pursue legal action.You are tarnishing reputations of not only the living but the dead.
posted on September 24, 2000 06:47:33 PM new
[b]iceblink [/b} -
Date Joined: September 24, 2000 04:59:32 PM And yet another sock puppet chimes in. Wow!
"A reasonable person will admit that technical analysis and expert authentication of this painting has been provided, and three out of four of these documents have been verified."
AT NO TIME HAVE I QUESTIONED THE LAB ANALYSIS! However, I have read the analyses and definitely question the conclusions the seller has concocted from them. All the lab anlysis shows is a painting with pigments that are technically possible in Van Gogh's time, and a notable absence of the one pigment that van Gogh was known to use the most - the white. However those pigments were available to most painters of that time, and well into the 20th century. I have a painting by my great-uncle Dave that could pass the lab tests with as much a resemblance to a van Gogh as the painting at OAS.
This could be any of the 1890-1920s forgeries and copies and imitations of Van Gogh's work and the lab would have a hard time detecting it. The prices for his paintings made him a tempting target for forgers even before WWI.
"So, the letter signed by John Rewald on his letterhead confirming "Yellow Roses" as a true van Gogh is not good enough?"
Because of the sellers proven tendency to confabulate, I question anything that person shows as "proof" unless there is a real live person to vouch for the authenticity of the documents. Rewald is dead, conveniently, which means he cannot be asked if he ever talked to Haskins or wrote that letter. It would take testimony from a document authentication expert before I believed that that scan was anything but a creation of person with a scanner and a photo editing program.
[ edited by abacaxi on Sep 24, 2000 06:54 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 07:10:05 PM new
Art expert? Pas moi, and pas anybody else, other than simply stating that it's ugly.
Frankly, we don't NEED to critique the painting at all to poke holes in this auction.
All we needed to do was show, over and over and over again, that Seller's claims regarding the painting and even regarding his own experts' statements left veracity behind long, long ago.
And we've done that, and it took, oh, maybe a dozen man-hours' research in total, because the "funging" seller did was pretty pathetic. He didn't check his facts before anybody else did; and he assumed nobody would question him. He forgot that people leave "paper trails" even (or maybe particularly) when they don't want to.
Really, now. If this painting could stand on its own and was verified by Rewald in 1990, why not just note that in the auction from the get-go? Why concoct these outlandish stories? Isn't authentication from Rewald enough? Do you really need a "Titanic" connection to to sell a genuine Van Gogh?
posted on September 24, 2000 07:31:21 PM new
LAGOLDIE, first of all, you are implying that the letter could have been sent to Haskins.
I wonder if it entered your mind that this correspondence could have been addressed to Mr. Haskins?
If that is the case, then the quote I used, from the report that "Rewald" wrote, is leading one to believe that the painting belonged to whoever the letter was being sent to. Therefore, if the letter was going to Haskins, the painting belongs to Haskins.
To quote .. again..
I have reviewed the materials that you gave me in January of this year and have come to the conclusion regarding your painting.
Now, let's assume for the moment that I believe 100% the letter is real. Let's also assume, for the moment that Haskins was helping Rewald and Haskins provided all the documentation to Rewald.. yet Haskins is not the owner of the painting. The owner would be documented someplace within all those pieces of paper and lab analysis. It would be very unprofessional for one to write "your" painting when the painting actually belonged to someone else. Therefore, either Haskins is the owner of it........... or........ That letter was sent to the owner of the painting and not Haskins.
Haskins speaks of "conversations" he does not speak of "letters" or "correspondences". Conversations ARE hearsay.
Now, back to your other questions.
1) Do I believe in the labwork and scientific analysis that have been presented.
Answer: Yes, unless it can be proven that the owner of the painting is any of the gentlemen that performed the work. In that case, it's a matter of ethics. All the lab work and analysis have proven is that the painting was done sometime in the late 1800. It does not prove who painted it.
2) Do I believe in the letter of authenticity that was presented 3 weeks into the auction?
Answer: No. Such evidence should have been presented from the onset. Perhaps it is because I am an open and upfront person in my business dealings. I don't like things "hidden" and that's what was done by the delaying of the presentation of that letter of authenticity from Rewald. To further my answer on this particular point. The seller's original story, that went with this auction, changed. The facts he presented were proven to be incorrect. This makes me distrust what else has been presented that can not be verified.
This leads me to:
3) Do I think that Haskins is inept?
Answer: If, they (pencil markings) were reported and in an additional report that was given to the owner of the painting (in 1988)..... than the owner has, once again failed to post all pertinent information concerning the painting. If the finding was not reported in 1988, than yes, Haskins is inept and this calls into account his credibility.
This, leads to:
4) If the markings were not there, in 1988, this means they were added within the next 12 years. This causes me to suspect the person who has had control of the painting during that 12 year time period.
For me, it has nothing to do with lab reports and scientific analysis. It has everything to do with what can be authenticated and verified. So far, the only thing that can be authenticated and verified is the fact that this painting was done sometime in the late 1800's.
I do not believe that my opinions can lead to any legal problems. It has been documented throughout this thread that the orginal provenance has been changed more than once. I have never called into question the abilities of the professionals involved in this painting. I have pointed out inconsistancies between what has been stated by them and what has been written at a later date. As a potential buyer, I have every right to do so.
Somehow, I am not surprised, in the slightest that you managed to be in Amsterdam during the last 7 days of March. It's only too bad that you can not provide facts that you saw this painting in the museum there. Too bad you didn't buy photographs at the gift shop.
Is there anything else you care to throw into this mix? I've stated my opinions clearly, just as everyone else has. Come what may, I am, entitled to my opinion.
posted on September 24, 2000 08:35:15 PM new
Perhaps the reason the "Van Gogh" hasn't received much attention from bidders is that they're all saving their money to snipe THIS beauty:
http://www.oldandsold.com/cgi-bin/auction.cgi?art&969930662
Seriously, though, as the end of the auction draws near, maybe the circumstance that's shifting more weight to the naysayers' position is the dog that ISN'T barking. Those with the means and inclination to acquire a genuine Van Gogh would seemingly be leaping at the chance to grab one for a mere $2Mil or so....one that's sufficiently authenticated, that is. One might suspect that such potential buyers would have at least as much ability and/or wherewithal to gather relevant information as a few chat board posters. So far (and this COULD change, of course), their bid silence speaks against the credibility of the seller.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
posted on September 24, 2000 08:48:44 PM newcathammer
Please edit out the link to the auction you have posted or follow the steps outlined in the CGs. (And if you really want to invite that Seller, it probably deserves it's own thread )
I will allow 1 hour for the edit after which I will have to delete your post.
Responce to Statement posted by rosiebud to flowblue2--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"flowblue2, it would seem that you are more interested in attacking the credentials of others, which are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It would seem that you are doing this to take the spotlight off of the tissue thin credentials of the professionals who were cited as validating this work".
You sound like an idiot, You constantly contradict your self. I am surprised there is not a foot growing out of your mouth.
Your Statement: "It would seem that you are more interested in attacking the credentials of others, which is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand" flowblue2 asked a simple question where did you get your credentials? What has given you the right to give the opinions you have set forth on multiple subjects, to numerous to even try to list. Many of the posters that are posting in this thread apparently can't take what they can dish out. You just can't imagine how stupid you sound.
So I am to understand you and your fellow idiots are allowed to insult, put down , slander anyone you feel inclined to. But when flowblue asks for your credentials you accuse "your interested in attacking the credentials of others" What in the hell is wrong with you? You ,and Most of the posters have don't nothing other then insult the professional people involved with this painting. You are hypocrites. Would any of you like this form of scrutiny, and treatment being directed at you. The professionals that analyzed the YR gave their educated options. No less no more. They had no devious motives, they were all doing jobs.
HCQ, I agree with flowblue , you should call Mr. Haskins and let him know your feelings on his credentials. He should have a chance to defend himself.But thats not your style is it? This is really very one sided. Your statements are glib. You should really try and get some kind of control over yourself. You are so pitiful.
[ edited by lagoldie on Sep 24, 2000 08:54 PM ]
posted on September 24, 2000 08:57:50 PM newlagoldie
You comments are insulting and violate the AW Community Guidelines. I am issuing a formal warning and will remind you that you are one post away from suspension.
Here is a link to the CGs - I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with them before you hit that Post Reply button again.
Your words are pearls. Yes, one that could afford the YR would have an expert analyze the painting, along with all documents. Do you think he or she would actually be even remotely interested in the opinion of any of the persons that have given their opinions on this chat? Would you please give me your opinion on who you think should authenticate the painting? One of the most respected art authenticators has already put his stamp of approval on YR. Would you like to put your two cents in at this point and state this document is a fake? Can you prove this document is a fake? Would this owner take the chance at posting a forged document on an Internet site for millions to see? Please really give this an educated opinion, not just a glib, oh yes.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:19:55 PM new
Hi Michelle,
Sorry, have emailed the violin seller & CC'd to you. Don't think that one would have much life as a thread of its own, but thought it might be an amusing counterpoint to this discussion .
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
posted on September 24, 2000 09:51:42 PM newcathammer
Thanks for following the CGs. In most instances, we would now lock the thread for the mandatory 24 hours to allow the Seller time to receive and respond to your invitation. In this instance, I have decided to waive the waiting period.
FACL touts itself as specializing in mural/fresco restoration, which jibes with reports on Haskins's work in the WAAC newsletters. I haven't found him noted anywhere as working on oil paintings.
)